This decision could be more radical than modest, increasing the political leverage of the wealthy few and moving us further toward an unregulated political marketplace and away from the democratic republic envisioned by the framers.
If you're part of that 0.08 percent of the population that has money to burn on political giving, why stop at one candidate? Why not dole out $5,000 bucks to a hundred different candidates just to be safe? That's where McCutcheon v. FEC comes in.
There is a part of the Affordable Care Act that is not at all working as originally envisioned, because the Supreme Court dramatically altered the structure of the law when it ruled that the expansion of Medicaid should be voluntary for states.
House Republicans now say it's just too late to pass an extension of unemployment benefits. This, after they spent time this week trying to strip President Obama of the power to create national monuments. Way to prioritize, guys...
The Koch brothers' enormous wealth does not entitle them to any special treatment when it comes to the right of the American people to know about political money being spent to influence federal elections.
We believe there are several reforms needed to fight back against the scourge of unlimited and secretive campaign spending, bring transparency and accountability to the system, and, more importantly, support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.
John Roberts has consistently placed the integrity of the Supreme Court over his conservative ideology. Exhibit A is how it is that the chief justice ...
The frustration surrounding America's inability to "fix" our education system to outperform the world highlights what Gladwell calls "the limits of power."
Increasingly, contemporary conservatives elevate even far-fetched claims of liberty over the greater good.
John Roberts has consistently placed the integrity of the Supreme Court over his conservative ideology. Exhibit A is how it is that the Chief Justice ...
It's important to not get wrapped up in the contraception issue and pretend that this is a women's rights case. It is not. They could be morally opposed to widgets, and the legal argument would be the same.
I am writing today as a mother, and thinking of my own daughters as they enter the work force. Let's think about the potential impact of a Supreme Court decision finding that a secular, for-profit company does not have to follow a federal law of general application on the grounds of religious freedom.
The wanted child, the planned family. Can anybody argue that the wanted child and the planned family are not infinitely better off for everyone: child, family and society in general?So why are we fighting these battles?
Religious freedom as we have known it stands in the balance this week as the SCOTUS prepares to hear arguments in the case of Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius. Ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby will fundamentally alter a definition that has stood for more than two centuries.
Religious liberty is one of the most important rights we have as Americans, and people of faith, such as my college teacher Martin Luther King Jr., have been instrumental in building a more perfect union. But as history all-too-often repeats itself, we cannot ignore that slavery, Jim Crow laws, and denial of women's suffrage were all once justified on religious grounds.
While Hobby Lobby opposes offering contraceptive coverage, it does sell three types of knitting needles. This is worth noting because, in the not-so-distant past, women who became pregnant and didn't have access to legal abortion used a variety of objects, including knitting needles.